Hi Steve.An FOI to the Fire Services 3 years ago showed that heath fires were most common on grazed sites.The distinction between natural fires and arson must be made as many heathland plants have evolved with a genetic fire response which raises germination %'s to avail those plants of the immediate nutrients released through fire followed by 20 years of low nutrients within which they thrive and their successional competitors struggle.Unfortunately grazed areas tend to be areas of compaction thus denying reptiles etc escape runs from fire!Intervention has downsides but they are not publicised.I am attempting to say that fire is a natural phenomena as well as a sick entertainment to some BUT that grazing associates with excess fires.Fire confuses the issue without analysis as humans all fear fire and react emotionally but nature has evolved to adapt and benefit from NATURAL fires.

#969: -

Thanks for your considered reply.

Steve Davis of the Dorset wildlife trust is quoted as saying the recent fire there had set them back 25 years. That scheme was subject to the same  proposals as for hartlebury Common. I understand the cycle of burn, regeneration and dependant species but there is a clear difference between out of control devestating injurous infernos and controlled back burning. The purpose of fire is irrelevant anyway as this form of deliberate mangement is banned here. My post was not intended as an emotional statement but merely a statement of fact. More heath, more fires, less heath, less fires. The people, public and experts in this field that I correspond with, do not deal in emotive terms. For all these reasons the issue of fire is not relevant here, only in the context of increased risk to cattle, wildelife, firefighters and emergency services, the public, adjacent houses, property, and the stability of the common itself.

 

Steve McCarron